I've owned both the 24/2.8 and the 20/2.8 and there is NO comparison whatsoever. There's a reason why I don't own the other two anymore. It's no secret that they aren't "stellar" lenses.
The biggest issue is the 2.8 vs 1.4 - there is no comparison. For anyone who has shot the Canon 35/2 and then the 35L, it's pretty easy to understand. In low light situations (something wedding photographers have to deal with on a regular basis), the 1.4 provides speed that 2.8 just can't.
Moreover, it's also about looks. The look of 1.4 is just different than 2.8.
Both a Camry and a Porsche will take you from point A to point B. Even with using local roads and staying within speed limits, each car is going to give you a far different feel/experience.
Also... sharpness isn't everything when it comes to IQ. The 2.8 and 1.4 might have the same sharpness, but they are not in the same league. For those who need and can appreciate the upgrade, they can spend the money. For those who don't get or need it, can save their money.
Saad Syed wrote:
The biggest issue is the 2.8 vs 1.4 - there is no comparison. For anyone who has shot the Canon 35/2 and then the 35L, it's pretty easy to understand. In low light situations (something wedding photographers have to deal with on a regular basis), the 1.4 provides speed that 2.8 just can't.
Moreover, it's also about looks. The look of 1.4 is just different than 2.8.
Both a Camry and a Porsche will take you from point A to point B. Even with using local roads and staying within speed limits, each car is going to give you a far different feel/experience.
Also... sharpness isn't everything when it comes to IQ. The 2.8 and 1.4 might have the same sharpness, but they are not in the same league. For those who need and can appreciate the upgrade, they can spend the money. For those who don't get it, can save their money. ...Show more →
Saad Syed wrote:
The biggest issue is the 2.8 vs 1.4 - there is no comparison. For anyone who has shot the Canon 35/2 and then the 35L, it's pretty easy to understand. In low light situations (something wedding photographers have to deal with on a regular basis), the 1.4 provides speed that 2.8 just can't.
Moreover, it's also about looks. The look of 1.4 is just different than 2.8.
Both a Camry and a Porsche will take you from point A to point B. Even with using local roads and staying within speed limits, each car is going to give you a far different feel/experience.
Also... sharpness isn't everything when it comes to IQ. The 2.8 and 1.4 might have the same sharpness, but they are not in the same league. For those who need and can appreciate the upgrade, they can spend the money. For those who don't get it, can save their money. ...Show more →
This is written from only one view point - available light shooting. For someone more interested in landscape shooting, I don't care about this argument. If the lens is stellar at f/5.6 to f/11, I'll buy it regardless if it opens to f/2.8 or f/1.4. Saying there is no comparison is nonsense. Of course there is. A valid comparison can be made for the majority of the aperture settings.
Your argument is also just only from one point of view.....much like mine or Saad's. Who is right? A new thread can be started for comparisons...it's very easy to do. I wish to relish in the wide open goodness of this lens, or anything below f2
I think the "less compression on DX" comes from the fact that you won't compose the same because of the "crop factor" (or whatever you want to call it)...? Yes, you'll get the same "compression" if you take the same shot from the same distance, but you won't actually do that...
Let me know if I'm wrong, but I think this is how the "less-DOF-in-DX" concept works (i.e., it's not that the DoF is any different, it's really that the distance from the subject for the same frame composition is further for DX, thus less magnification, less DoF, less "compression").
